On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 7:02 PM, David Sommerseth <davids@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 07/03/10 23:37, John Kacur wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 9:39 PM, Carsten Emde <C.Emde@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> If not in SMP testing mode, the priority may go below 1, if the specified
>>> priority is lower than the number of threads, e.g.
>>> # cyclictest -p2 -t3
>>> T: 0 (21970) P: 2 [..]
>>> T: 1 (21971) P: 1 [..]
>>> T: 2 (21972) P: 0 [..]
>>>
>>> Do not allow priority to go below 1.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Carsten Emde <C.Emde@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> Index: rt-tests/src/cyclictest/cyclictest.c
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- rt-tests.orig/src/cyclictest/cyclictest.c
>>> +++ rt-tests/src/cyclictest/cyclictest.c
>>> @@ -1304,7 +1304,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
>>> }
>>>
>>> par->prio = priority;
>>> - if (!sameprio)
>>> + if (priority > 1 && !sameprio)
>>> priority--;
>>> if (priority && policy <= 1) par->policy = SCHED_FIFO;
>>> else if (priority && policy == 2) par->policy = SCHED_RR;
>>>
>>> --
>>
>> I'm not sure about this, why not allow a priority below 1? The code
>> below properly sets the third thead to SCHED_OTHER.
>> I could imagine wanting to test that too. If you don't want to go
>> below 1 then just set a higher prio, p3 in the scenario you
>> showed.
>
> Maybe I'm misreading and misunderstanding the patch ... but I believe
> the if statement should say:
>
> if (priority > 0 && !sameprio)
> priority--;
>
> Just to avoid the situation the commit log says, priority to go below 0.
>
>
> kind regards,
>
> David Sommerseth
The code in general there was buggy, so I reverted the patch that
caused the problems in the first place.
(assuming Clark merges it).
Now the code will read (as it did before)
if (priority && !histogram && !smp && !numa)
priority--;
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
